Loading...
01-18-2023 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING jANUARYI8,2023 INDEX Area Variance No.49-2022 Faden Enterprises 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.2SS.-1-5S Area Variance No.50-2022 Garden World Associates LLC 2. FURTHER TABLED Tax Map No. 302.5-1-49&302.5-1-50 Area Variance No.57-2022 Russell Thomas 2. Tax Map No.296.5-1-17 Area Variance No. 63-2022 3 Sons and Holly,LLC (Michael Carey) S. Tax Map No.239.12-2-57 Area Variance No.1-2023 Michael Rozell 19. Tax Map No.2S9.7-1-17 Area Variance No.2-2023 ASD Spartan/Terence Rasmussen 22. Tax Map No.27.-1-6.1&279.-1-6.2 Area Variance No. 3-2023 Neil&Sandra Rypkema 27. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-34 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/1S/2023) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18TK,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RICHARD CIPPERLY ROBERT KEENAN,ALTERNATE MARY PALACINO,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-So good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,January 1S`h, 2023. If you haven't been here before, our procedure is kind of simple. We'll call each case up,read the case into our records, allow the applicant to present his case, ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised,then we'll open the public hearing, accept input from the public, close the public hearing,poll the Board to see where we stand on the issue and then proceed accordingly, but first we have a couple of administrative items. So,John, could I get a motion on the meeting minutes from December 14`h APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 14,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14TK, 2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 1S`h day of January,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So secondly we want to table AV 49-2022. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Faden Enterprises. Applicant proposes removal of an existing building on the site to construct 3 new buildings and associated site work. The project includes one building of 5,355 sq. ft. that is designated as 3 tenant spaces:2,000 sq.ft.for a drive-thru;2,500 sq.ft.for a restaurant;and 3,555 sq.ft.for retail space.The second and third buildings will contain a total of 24 units of self-storage in 3,4 SO sq.ft.Each building will be 1,740 sq.ft.and have 12 units.Site plan for new commercial development and self-storage facility,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline/wetland, Freshwater Wetland permit, and Special Use Permit for Self Storage facility. Relief is requested for setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.49-2022 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Cipperly: Tabled to the March 22,2023 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be submitted by February 15,2023. Duly adopted this 18th day of January,2023,by the following vote: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/1S/2023) AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-And also I need a tabling for AV 50-2022. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES LLC ZONING MDR (49) &z Cl (50) LOCATION 2 CARLTON DR. &z 537 AVIATION RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A PARKING LOT EXPANSION FOR 84 PARKING SPACES ON 1.09 ACRES. THE PROJECT IS PART OF A REZONING AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WHERE THE SITE WORK INCREASES THE HARD SURFACING ON THE SITE TO A NONCOMPLIANT PERCENTAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 69-2022; RZ 5- 2022;AV 44-2017,SP 49-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2023 LOT SIZE 0.32 ACRES (49)&z 0.77 ACRES (50) TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-49&z 302.5-1-50 SECTION 179-3-040 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Garden World Associates LLC. Applicant proposes a parking lot expansion for S4 parking spaces on 1.09 acres. The project is part of a rezoning and site plan review where the site work increases the hard surfacing on the site to a noncompliant percentage. Relief requested for permeability. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2022 GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES LLC, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: To February 15,2023 with any new information due by February 1",2023. Duly adopted this 1S`h day of January,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-And so our first application is AV 57-2022,Russell Thomas. TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RUSSELL THOMAS OWNER(S) RUSSELL THOMAS ZONING MDR LOCATION 23 HIGHPOINT DR. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO INSTALL A 160 SQ. FT. SHED 3 FT. FROM PROPERTY LINE. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,717 SQ. FT. WITH PORCHES TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE EXISTING 192 SQ. FT. SHED RECEIVED A PERMIT IN 2006 FOR A LOCATION DIFFERENT THAN CURRENT LOCATION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 17-2022;SUB 4-1992 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2022 LOT SIZE 1.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO.296.5-1-17 SECTION 179-5-020 RUSSELL&r ERIC THOMAS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 57-2022, Russell Thomas, Meeting Date: January 1S, 2023, "Project Location: 23 Highpoint Dr. Description of Proposed Project: (Revised)Applicant requests to install a 160 sq. ft. shed 3 ft. from property line. The existing home of 2,717 sq. ft. with porches to remain with no changes.The existing 192 sq.ft.shed received a permit in 2006 for a location different than current location. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for placement of a 160 sq. ft. shed. The parcel is 1.17 ac located in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040,Section 179-5-020 accessory The applicant proposes the shed to be 3 ft.from the property line where a 10 ft. setback is required. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/1S/2023) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The project is within 3 ft. of the adjoining property line. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to locate the shed to a compliant location. The applicant has not addressed the existing shed status. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial. Relief requested is 7 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project maybe considered to have minimal impact. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. The applicant has indicated the existing shed has already been moved at least once, and the new smaller shed is proposed to be placed too close to the property line. Staff comments: The applicant has provided limited information about the new project. The application was tabled at the November 30,2022 meeting with information due by December 15`h. The applicant provided an email that indicated new shed of 160 sq. ft. was proposed and to be located 3 ft.from the property line. Further,the applicant emailed photos of the proposed shed. The applicant was directed to provide 15 copies of the updated information including an updated plot plan showing the new shed and setbacks to the new location as well as the photos of the shed by December 22 d—no additional information has been received. Noting if the shed is smaller in size then it would not appear to be used as screening as mentioned at the previous meeting." MR. MC CABE-So do you guys have anything to add? It's pretty straightforward. ERIC THOMAS MR. E. THOMAS-I'm Eric Thomas. I'm his son. So the first question was whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this variance. The answer that he is giving is no. This is an alternative solution due to the fact that on July 15`h,2021 and August 20`h,2021,the Planning Board gave permission to cut down trees and dig out dirt from approximately 100 feet to install a driveway to Lot Nine on my private property. This is why I need my shed as an interim means of privacy. Once the trees and dirt are replaced I will remove the shed. The second question was whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance, and the answer is on or about July 27`h,2022 I asked Craig Brown to have my trees and dirt put back and I would remove the shed due to the privacy issue. On the 16`h of August 2022 the neighbor sent an e-mail to the Town if they could install a fence on the property line I would accept this option as long as it is a tall fence to a degree of privacy that is not at my expense. The third question was whether the requested area variance is substantial. The answer is I'm making a compromise by going from a 16 by 12 shed to a 16 by 10 shed, from a one foot to a three foot setback. The fourth question was whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The answer is there is no adverse effect or impact. Fifth,whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The answer was the alleged difficulty was created when the Planning Board gave permission to clear over 100 feet of land that is not in an easement or near it for a non-permitted driveway on my private property, and lastly there should be no effect on the neighbors as the site plan shows that the site setbacks have the front of the house facing east towards Birdsall Road. MR. MC CABE-So the question is,you mean this shed is going to come down if a fence is put up or when some suitable barrier is put up? So this is just a temporary shed? RUSSELL THOMAS MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Because that wasn't clear the last time. Okay Do we have other questions of the applicant? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MR.HENKEL-You're saying that you want the neighbors to put a fence up? MR. THOMAS-When they, they wrote a letter to the Town complaining and they said that the Town should put up,either I should put up a fence or the Town should,okay. That's why I added these on here. MR.HENKEL-Excuse me. Is there such a letter? MRS. MOORE-I don't have a copy of that letter,and it wasn't made part of your submission. If you wish to put up a fence,there's no requirement that the Board require someone else to put up a fence. MR. THOMAS-That's what it said in the letter. MR.HENKEL-What I don't understand is you're the one asking for the variance. They're not. Okay. So you're the one that's breaking the rules,but yet you want someone else to put the fence up for you. That doesn't really make sense. MR. THOMAS-Because I didn't break the rules. MR. HENKEL-What do you mean? You're asking for a variance. That's like breaking the rules. It's a Code violation. It's because you're putting it in a setback where it's not allowed. Right? So you're asking for forgiveness. They're not. MR. THOMAS-I didn't clear the trees,sir. I didn't wreck my property. MR. MC CABE-We understand. MR.HENKEL-So a Staff question. You're saying it's the neighbors that took the trees down? MRS. MOORE-There is an approved site plan on file,and the applicant,my understanding at this point is that it's constructed as presented. MR.HENKEL-So you're saying that the other people didn't do anything wrong as far as you know. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR.HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-I want to have this explained a little bit. I'm not sure what the answer is. MR. MC CABE-Well, he's saying that he's going to tear that shed down if a fence is put up or if there's some other barrier that's. MR. URRICO-He's already been approved. The fence has been approved. MRS. MOORE-There's no fence proposed. MR. URRICO-Okay,but I'm not getting that here. That's why I need to have it further explained. MR. MC CABE-Well,so what he's saying is we can condition our variance. MR. HENKEL-How can you condition it with someone else not being here and it's up to them. It's their property. You know. MR. MC CABE-If they don't,you know, they put up an argument against this shed before. If they don't like the shed then they have the option of putting up the fence. MRS. MOORE-So the project in front of you is a shed. MR. MC CABE-That's right. So the applicant is saying that the shed will disappear if some other. MRS. MOORE-But currently the proposal in front of you is 160 square foot shed. MR. MC CABE-Sure, with three feet in. So what we're doing is passing judgement on the three foot. Before it was one foot. MR. HENKEL-But you've also got to remember that he also was permitted to put a shed in in 2006 of a certain size and then he built a different sized shed. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/IS/2023) MR. MC CABE-But the size of the shed isn't the question. MRS. MOORE-It's not the size of the shed. MR.HENKEL-It's in the wrong area. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MC CABE-The size of the shed isn't an issue. MRS. MOORE-That's not a question. It's the location of the shed. MR. MC CABE-Right. Other questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-Can I say one other thing? I went and bought another shed so that it would be smaller, okay,to try to compromise. MR. MC CABE-The size of the shed's not,from our standpoint,is not an issue. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS.MOORE-So I guess one of the other comments is that the Board has nothing in front of them. There's no information about how that shed is being located or any other additional information that the Board requested when they tabled the application on November 30`h MR.HENKEL-There's no new information. MR. MC CABE-Well it says here that it's going to be three feet from the edge. MRS. MOORE-But you have no project,you have no plans in front of you. MR. MC CABE-Okay. I see what you mean. MRS. MOORE-And it's been requested of the applicant numerous times. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.CIPPERLY-I know we talked about some kind of screening for the shed and the three feet. Whether it's vegetation or a shorter fence so they don't have to look at your fence. Is that something that you'd be agreeable to? MR. THOMAS-I'm agreeable to that,but I'm not putting it up. We're in litigation on that. This is the whole problem. MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. Well we really can't compel somebody else to do something on your property. MR. MC CABE-Right. MR.HENKEL-Or their property. MR. CIPPERLY-Or their property for that matter. MRS. PALACINO-Is there a reason why you can't locate that shed within the stated allowances so that you don't have to be here? MR. MC CABE-Well if you looked at the notes from before,there's a sprinkler system and some electrical in the way. MRS.PALACINO-Okay. I'm sorry. MR.HENKEL-There's other locations that it could be put on. It's not like there's a restriction on the size of the lot. He's got a piece of property that's over an acre. So therefore to ask for a variance, I think he should be putting it where. MR. MC CABE-Right now we're just asking questions. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/1S/2023) MR. THOMAS-Okay, but you also spoke about, she just said to put it on my property. There was a driveway that was put in through my property, okay, on this separate,where this shed is, okay,that was outside of the easements,on private property that it cleared 100 feet of trees. MRS. MOORE-I just want to make sure that the Board understands that that was an approved Planning Board application, and you were made aware of that. MR. THOMAS-And I argued it, and when we found out,we finally find out, Craig Brown has altered the house,okay. It was tipped a little bit,but my property was still cut 100 feet of,which I sent pictures of all of that. MRS. MOORE-I have pictures that were provided. I have them available for you to use. MR.THOMAS-That was all taken down after a driveway was already put in and the property was cleared. MRS. MOORE-But the project is for a shed at the moment. MR. THOMAS-That's right, and that's why there's no buffer there or, you know, separation. We have them coming across our property. We've had dents in our house. We've had windows broken, a door. Okay. We have the video. So we have to have some sort of privacy. Okay,but you want me to go build an eight foot shed,I'll go do that,but I have to have it so that it fits in between there so that I have a buffer. I was already cited. I got a letter in the mail yesterday,okay,now my lights. Which her light's shine into my property, okay. So if I have to take my shed away, then her lights are going to really shine into my property,into my bedroom and into my bathroom,okay. So,you know,I'm trying to make a compromise. I'm willing to make a compromise. If I have to go get a different shed,I'll go get a different one,but I need some sort of a buffer there. I'm not putting up a fence because of the legal issues that my lawyer has informed me of. MR. MC CABE-So do we have other questions of the applicant? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if anybody has input on this particular project. Is there anybody who would like to speak on this particular project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN BRAD MAGOWAN MR.MAGOWAN-Brad Magowan,Town of Queensbury. I live right in Highpointe. Plus I also sit on the Planning Board and am recusing myself because of this whole matter, and unfortunately it's a huge nightmare and unfortunately it's put a lot of stress on our neighborhood. I will admit that the clear cutting was done right up to the edge of his driveway, all right, and I understand where Mr. Thomas is coming from,but I'm speaking on behalf of,you know, really, the neighborhood. It's just a crying shame what happened with this crisscrossing the driveway and all the clear cutting, and it's turned into a huge legal matter, but there's one thing I have to say about Mr. Thomas is the fact that to me his word has always been his word and really at the point right now I just heard about the light issues. I see the lights. It's unbelievable. His one light,he's getting harassed for compared to all the lights that shine,even coming up Birdsall out of the neighborhood that you can see down the hill from the new residence. So,you know, what he's asking for, and speaking as,you know I can't speak for all my neighbors, the ones that I have. There's really not an issue here until this all gets resolved, and we'd like it all resolved,because it's just a shame what it's done to the neighborhood,but for the clear cutting and it was clear cut all the way up to his driveway. So all that land between the property line and his driveway is nothing but sand, and it's a shame, and nobody's replaced it, and nobody's done anything. So I understand where Mr. Thomas is coming from,but I just wanted to say that. I really didn't want to speak,but it's a shame that this is really going on up there,and it is a nightmare. So thank you for your time. MR.MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to address the Board on this particular issue? Seeing no one. MRS. MOORE-There is a public comment. MR. URRICO-"We would like to oppose the granting of any variance regarding the location of the shed. We both listened to the meeting minutes and cannot understand why the installation of sprinkler heads is a viable rationale for the granting of a variance. When did the installation of sprinkler heads become our problem or one for the Town of Queensbury to resolve? Again, I ask,what makes Russell Thomas so special that he does not need to comply with local ordinances? Additionally, one Board member at the meeting suggested that the shed in question was not considered an eye sore. I suggest to the Board member that the shed be moved next to their home so they can enjoy it. Additionally,Russell Thomas was recently cited for an exterior lighting violation so he seems to have a history of ignoring local codes and ordinances. We respectfully hope you can understand and appreciate our position of the current location of the shed. We are hopeful that the request for variance will be denied and therefore the shed be relocated 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/1S/2023) in order to comply with current code requirements. Regards, Diane Barbera and Mike Pobok" I'm not sure of their address. It's not listed here. That's it. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I'd be in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I guess I would be in favor of the application, period. I can't require a condition of screening,while I would like to. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-I think there's room that he could move that shed into a more compliant area. It's too bad that the neighbors can't get along,but I think he's got enough property there that the shed should be in a more compliant area. So I'm not going to be on board in this instance. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm fully in favor of the application. Mr. Thomas did not create this problem. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-I would be in favor of this application as well. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I think I would be in favor of this application the way it stands at this point. MR. MC CABE-Okay, and I,too, support the application. It's certainly not unreasonable a shed, and the applicant,I requested the shed be moved in a little bit. The one foot from the property line was a little bit too much forme. I'm more comfortable with three feet. So I'm going to ask Jim if he'd make a motion for us here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russell Thomas. (Revised) Applicant requests to install a 160 sq. ft. shed 3 ft. from property line. The existing home of 2,717 sq.ft.with porches to remain with no changes. The existing 192 sq.ft.shed received a permit in 2006 for a location different than current location. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for placement of a 160 sq. ft. shed. The parcel is 1.17 ac located in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040,Section 179-5-020 accessory The applicant proposes the shed to be 3 ft.from the property line where a 10 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on November 30,2022&January 1S,2023. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. Many people have located sheds on the property line. We've granted variances previously in similar fashion. 2. Feasible alternatives would be to move it in and it has been considered by the Board but it's not considered to be reasonable in this case since it's blocking light from the neighboring property next door after removal of all vegetation on the property line. S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/IS/2023) 3. The requested variance is substantial because it's requiring seven feet of relief,but the Board finds that that's a reasonable amount given the fact of why it's preferred in this location. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because he did not cut down the property, all the vegetation that previously screened it from the adjacent lot. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That an as built survey be provided. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2022 RUSSELL THOMAS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Keenan: Duly adopted this 18th Day of January 2023 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So before you call your vote, I have just some clarification,just so the Board understands that the neighboring property is not in any violation from the Town regulations. Okay,and then secondly as part of your resolution I would suggest that you condition it that the applicant provide an updated plot plan. You could ask for a survey to be done or you can ask for an updated explaining that the shed will be now three feet from the property line. MR. MC CABE-So Jim meant to add the condition that an as built survey be provided. MRS. MOORE-Good. AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Keenan,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr.Henkel ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations you have a project. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 63-2022,3 Sons&Holly LLC. AREA VARIANCE NO.63-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II 3 SONS AND HOLLY,LLC (MICHAEL CAREY, JR.) AGENT(S) STUDIO A LANDSCAPE, ARCH. &z ENG.; JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) 3 SONS AND HOLLY, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 28 HOLLY LANE (REVISED)APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND SITE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 416 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,275 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE DECK PORTIONS INCLUDE REMOVAL OF DECK/PORCH AREAS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 72 SQ.FT.PORCH AND A 200 SQ.FT.PORCH. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 3,225 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF AN ON-GRADE PAVER PATIO AREA AND STONE SLAB PATH, ENLARGING THE FIRE PIT AREA, AND REDUCTION OF HARD SURFACING ALSO PROPOSED. IN ADDITION,THERE IS TO BE A RAIN GARDEN AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS ADDED TO THE SITE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING 1,152 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA GARAGE WITH LIVING SPACE. SITE PERMEABILITY WAS REDUCED PRIOR TO SUBMISSION AS PART OF PARKING ARRANGEMENT ON THE SITE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY,EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 76-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: ALD LOT SIZE 0.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-57 SECTION 179-3-040;179-6-065;179-4-080;147 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/1S/2023) JON ZAPPER&KIRSTEN CATELLIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 63-2022, 3 Sons and Holly, LLC (Michael Carey,Jr.), Meeting Date: January 1S, 2023 "Project Location: 2S Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 416 sq. ft. addition to the existing home of 1,275 sq. ft. footprint. The deck portions include removal of deck/porch areas to construct a new 72 sq.ft.porch and a 200 sq.ft.porch.The new floor area is 3,225 sq.ft.Site work includes installation of an on-grade paver patio area, stone slab path, enlarging the fire pit area, and reduction of hard surfacing also proposed.In addition,there is to be a rain garden and shoreline plantings added to the site. There are no changes to the existing 1,152 sq. ft. floor area garage with living space. Site permeability was reduced prior to submission as part of parking arrangement on the site. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of nonconforming structure, and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for permeability,expansion of a nonconforming structure,and setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and setbacks for residential additions and site work. The project site is on a 0.34 ac parcel in the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional Relief is requested for permeability where 71.60/o is proposed and 750/o is required. The deck to be setback 39 ft.where a 50 ft. setback is required. Stormwater device proposed to be 35 ft.where 100 ft.is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home near the shoreline. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested for permeability is 3.40/o and setback relief is 11 ft. for the deck and 65 ft.for stormwater device. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project maybe considered to have minimal to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. Stormwater controls are proposed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes alterations to the existing home to create a new entryway. The additional work includes anew deck to the back of the home and patio area improvement. The plans show the new addition entry elevation and the floor print area of the new deck. The applicant has explained prior to site plan the parking area was redone and as part of the site plan process it was determined the permeability was reduced from 750/o to 71.60/o. Town Staff conducted a site visit in December. The project has been revised with the number of bedrooms remaining at 4 where two will be in the existing home and two in the upstairs of the garage." MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Kirsten Catellier from Studio A and Mike Carey, the applicant, is behind us. Laura, could you put up the proposed conditions. So we were here previously and at that point John had asked us to look at permeability and see what we could do. So the permeability variance is now from 750/o to 71.6. It's a small site. He's not doing significant things in terms of what's proposed,but the square footage, it doesn't take a lot of square footage to be a few percent just because it's such a small site. The addition to the house is on the roadside,not near the lake,but everything that we're asking for here is a benefit to the lake. Kirsten will go through this in detail, but there's dramatically increased planting towards the lake. Of course Queensbury requires planting, but this is going above and beyond. On the north side of the neighbor's property there's an existing 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) stormwater problem that's not caused by Mike that the water comes down the road and floods and storms into this property and the property to the north. So what Kirsten has designed all along the top there is a stormwater facility that will direct the stormwater from the lake along the property line. First it'll infiltrate into the basin that she's created,and then the variance that we're asking for for stormwater basin that's not 100 feet from the lake, on the top side it's about 40 feet and that's a good thing because it's infiltrating rather than running off. The deck that's there now is being removed and replaced by a patio area and a deck,but right now the water comes off the deck,it goes down the hill and runs right into the lake untreated. So the patio is slopes away from the lake towards the house where there's a trench. It's going to be captured and it's going to go into a basin to be treated on the south. So again that's eliminating water that's going untreated into the lake. Now it's going to be treated and it's going away from the lake and,you know,it's a small house. What's proposed is just anew entryway,anew dining room,you know, nothing dramatic, but important for the family in terms of enjoying the site. In order to get to the permeability reduction, there are two paved spaces along the north side of the front that are going to be removed,re-vegetated. So that's how we got to the 71.60/o. So I'll turn it over to Kirsten. MS. CATELLIER-Kirsten Catellier from Studio A. Just to add on to Jon's comments. Some of the site improvements that we've done since the last meeting to improve permeability. You can see on the front there's two walks shown right now from the paved asphalt to the front of the house and into the garage. We actually eliminated the third little strip,the leg that was in there. So that's gone. We eliminated the two parking spaces and on the lakeside of the residence we actually eliminated two feet width of the pavers that are proposed to pull that back from the shore. So that all contributed to making the permeability better on the site,and then lastly we also added that planting area,just to the north of the reduced parking area. We thought that had many benefits. One to capture additional water running down the road,but also,too,to help buffer from the adjacent neighbor and just increase the vegetation in that area, and then lastly I know there was a question about the bed count. We are remaining at four bedrooms. What is currently on the property, we're not increasing, and the septic system that was already installed and approved previously is compliant for four bedrooms. So everything is to remain as is. I think that's about all the improvements that we've done since last meeting to just improve the request that we're asking for. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. CIPPERLY-Yes. Can you put this one up,please. This is accurate. Correct? MS. CATELLIER-Yes. MR. CIPPERLY-It's just kind of an odd question, but that house as it currently is, there's only one bathroom and that's accessible through the different bedrooms. Right? MS. CATELLIER-Two. MICHAEL CAREY MR. CAREY-There's two bathrooms in that house. MR. MC CABE-First you have to state your name. Sorry. MR. CAREY-I'm Michael Carey. I'm the owner of the property. MR. CIPPERLY-I can't find it. MR. CAREY-It's right there. Yes. MR. CIPPERLY-That's the new. MR. CAREY-No,it's not. That's the new. MR. CIPPERLY-You have that identified as the addition. MR. CAREY-The addition is in the front of the property right there. Correct. The bathroom is currently right where the addition is right now,too. There is a bathroom. MR.HENKEL-So it's in the kitchen area now. MR. CIPPERLY-I could not find an existing plan. This one's been around for,since November. MR. ZAPPER-That's a good question,because we're only showing the new one,but it's replacing the one that was there. MR. CAREY-It pretty much just makes it larger. It's really tight in there now. Small bathroom. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MR. CIPPERLY-So when you talked about taking things away, that bathroom is going away or is that being incorporated? MR. CAREY-Remodeling the bathroom. Just making it larger. MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. I mean I guess we went through this with the bedrooms and the garage and I'm a little confused at times. MR. CAREY-Previously when we submitted for the first plan we had an extra, we were trying to add an extra bedroom,because I was under the impression that we could. The system that was designed,it could handle the capacity of that bedroom, but what I misunderstood from Tom the engineer, the leach field wasn't designed for a five bedroom system. So that's why we went back and eliminated that. So there'll still be four. MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. HENKEL-But you do have a closet in the living room area which kind of makes it be a bedroom potentially. It's kind of unusual to have a closet in the living room. MR. CAREY-That serves as like a mop closet. We don't have one in the kitchen area like that right now. MR.HENKEL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. CIPPERLY-You brought up,there's no closet in bedroom two,is that correct? MR. CAREY-Correct. The bedroom as you walk in does not have a closet in there right now. MR. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CAREY-There is a bed in there,though. MR. MC CABE-Are we all set? A public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and seek input on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JEFF MEYER MR. MEYER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. For the record,my name is Jeff Meyer. I'm an attorney with Meyer, Fuller, and Stockwell in Lake George. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Hogan and a number of the property owners on Holly Lane. I handed out a four or five page letter with a little exhibit detailing the arguments why the variances,plural,should not be granted. There are a number of alternatives that exist. Essentially a quick summary. The Staff Notes correctly show that the property is currently in violation. The pavement along the road was added to that permit. It's why the property needs the variance for permeability,and there are also an existing fire pit and on grade pavers on a portion of the patio out front. They were all done without permits and without coming before this Board. So essentially what we're saying is the applicant shouldn't be allowed to expand the violation as justification for variances. There's previous discussions as to what the use is for the property and whether it's actually a single family residence or a short term rental. I just want to clarify that the property is permissible to be used as a short term rental. We're not arguing that fact. What we're saying is that use and the impacts associated with that more intensive use, should be considered when you're evaluating the detrimental impact that will occur in the neighborhood and the larger community, and as you start to work your way through the criteria,it becomes abundantly clear,you know,is there going to be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. The answer is yes. Even with some of the reduced pavement along the road,there's still room to park eight vehicles. That's four times what's normally associated with a single family dwelling and it isn't justifiable based on what is shown. It's double what is permissible or what is recommended for a short term rental based on the number of bedrooms. So all the impervious surfaces and the variances associated with that become unnecessary and irrelevant. The stormwater. They're asking to locate it within 35 feet of the lake. If you get rid of all the impervious surfaces and all the paving up by the road you can actually treat it and infiltrate it up by the road and not down by the lake where if anything were ever to go wrong or you get a large storm event that overflows some of the infiltration areas, the contaminants are going to end up in the lake. If you look at the hard surface on the front,the blue stone patio isn't outlined, and with the materials there's an aerial photo that essentially gives you an idea of the number of parking spaces that are associated with the neighborhood, the permeability and, you know, what hard scape is also in and around the area. There's simply,you know,the patio that they're proposing is three times the size of anything else that's in the area. It's excessive and it's unnecessary. It complicates 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) stormwater, and again, you're adding hard surface that results in greater detrimental impacts because there's simply nothing similar. When you look at whether or not there are other feasible alternatives. The original application said this is it. There aren't any feasible alternatives. You raised a bunch of issues. The Board asked a bunch of probing questions,two days they have a new plan with different alternatives. The Town inspected the property in December, realized there were some questions with the bedrooms. No alternatives. Boom. There's alternatives and we have a new plan before you. As we've shown with some of the permeability,there are alternatives. You don't need this giant patio. You don't need all of this parking. You can reconfigure. You can reduce. You can limit. The impacts that they're asking and the scope of the additions that they're asking for are, you know, voluntary. The size of the structure isn't necessarily what we're talking about, but it's the addition of all the hard scape, all the impermeable surfaces. Because quite frankly what's going to come with it is the property across the street is similarly situated and it turns into a party house. You have, you know, what was essentially the creation of a compound where you're going to have large parties. That's why there was such a concern over the septic system by my client and the neighbors. You're creating a situation where there's going to be a lot of people there and it doesn't need to be enhanced through the addition of impermeable surfaces,hard scape patios, a fire pit that's 15 feet from the lake. And to that end the variance is substantial. They're requesting three variances. There's no need for three variances. If you're looking at percentages,locating the stormwater device is a 650/o variance from what is required. Twenty percent relief is required for the deck encroaching into the lake side setback. These are substantial variances and they should be looked at as a whole and in the abstract because a change to one can create alternatives for the other. Back to the adverse environmental impacts. I do think it's quite evident and clear the stormwater impacts are there. The adverse environmental impacts are there. There is a stormwater situation on Holly Lane, but it's only going to get worse if the impervious surface that was put there illegally is allowed to remain and become compliant through actions of this Board. That stormwater should be addressed, should be addressed properly and not channeled directly down the slope toward Lake George where the applicant draws water, my client draws water and a lot of the people that live on Assembly Point also draw water. Lastly, the difficulty is self-created. Yes it's a small lot,but what they're asking for is entirely self-created. There's also the no build alternative. In choosing to create this large hard scape,create this large patio,create this large parking area when one isn't necessary, and they all have impacts and they're all to the detriment of the Town,the neighborhood and Lake George. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? BRIAN HOGAN MR.HOGAN-Good evening. I'm Brian Hogan. I live to the north of the subject property and rather than go over what Jeff has done already, I'll just try to enhance it just a little bit. What we're showing here is the number of bedrooms. The applicant really wants five bedrooms in the property. Going as far back as when they were looking for their septic variance. They indicated to the Town at that time that there was one bedroom in the garage. They were forced to correct this to two bedrooms. Then they came before this Board and indicated again that there was one bedroom in the garage. Then we went through a couple of tablings, inspections to determine that there were in fact two bedrooms in the garage once again. Subsequent to that they tried to get approval for five bedrooms and they couldn't do that. Now we're looking at a dining room,three living rooms and a modification to the bathroom. I honestly don't believe, based upon what's going on so far, that the applicant has any intention of leaving that as a dining room. Can you bring up the site plan with the plantings please. So the other thing the applicant has done is they've reduced the number of parking spaces from 9.5. As you can see there,they've basically added all of this parking area, and not just added parking area. They paved over stormwater. Originally the stormwater was handled there. Any of the addition traveled this way and went down towards my property. Now by virtue of the fact they added all that stormwater pavement to the area, it flooded my yard. I had complained about it,at which time they indicated that they would fix that. I had originally thought that what they meant by fixing it was that they were going to get rid of the extra parking spaces. What they've done is take this,thousands of gallons of stormwater generated by this flat roof,comes down gutters from the road, all this parking space,takes a right hand turn. Their septic leach field is right here. Now the septic leach field is at elevation 333. The elevation of the road at that point is 332 The elevation that they're showing for their dry creek bed is right around 331. Now you do some simple math. They are taking the stormwater three and a half feet from that force main leach field two feet below the level of the leach field,directing it towards the lake,through an insufficient methodology to process that and down a 45 degree into the lake where we get our drinking water. That is unacceptable. And the way they're trying to couch this with the good people is that they've determined that the existing permeability is 71.5601o. If you look at the documentation submitted by the applicant, they indicated that the existing permeability is 71.56010 when in fact it's not. They added all of that pavement. The original permeability is 750/o. So it actually requires a variance and a stormwater plan. By them coming before you this evening and telling you that the existing permeability is 71.56 they are trying to absolve themselves of the fact that they need a variance for,a,that pavement and,b,a stormwater plan. You have the letter in your possession from them indicating that they don't need a stormwater plan. Do you have any questions for me? No? All right. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MEREDITH HOGAN MRS.HOGAN-Hi,Meredith Hogan. 34 Holly Lane to the north. I had this really cute thing I was going to read,very sentimental about my neighborhood and where I live,but I think the gist of what I would like to say is that it's going to be an LLC. It is an LLC that is the applicant. We don't know who the members of the LLC. It's not necessarily a family who's living there. The applicant has spent very little time there since purchasing the property. My biggest concern is that fire pit and the smoke that comes into my bedroom at night when the wind's out of the south, and if it heads the direction it's in my neighbors' bedrooms and I just noticed they were making is larger which I didn't realize. When you come up to Assembly Point there's a nice little sign there that says residential zone,and I kind of put a lot of stock into that when we moved in there about 20 years ago, and now I understand the applicant has a right to do short term rentals,but I don't think the Town should approve any variances and put additional pressure to the lake for no other reason than for financial gain for what is in essence a hotel and that was all I had to say. Very intimidating coming up here. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else? Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper, and I'd like to thank the Zoning Board for their attention to the inconsistencies in this application and concerns regarding permeability and expansions in the critical environmental area surrounding Lake George. Although the applicant has been revised and claims to eliminate the permeability variance,there are questions regarding existing conditions used to determine the permeability and the fact that permeability will actually increase within the shoreline setback area. MR.MC CABE-So a couple of people have said that they weren't requesting a permeability variance. They are requesting a permeability variance. MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. That's part of my confusion on this. MR. HENKEL-They're back to the existing permeability which they don't need to ask for permeability now. Right? MRS. MOORE-Ultimately they need a permeability variance. MR.HENKEL-I thought the existing was 71. MRS.MOO RE-What had happened was the applicant had paved prior to submission of the materials. So once the calculation was actually done, it was determined that they were originally compliant. Now they're not. So that's why the permeability still stands. MR. MC CABE-Non-conforming structure,permeability variance, and setbacks are what they're looking for. MR. NAVITSKY-Right. That's what I'm saying is that there's confusion on the permeability. I even included a photo from the applicant's real estate page that showed where a stormwater basin was located by the garage. This is over, taken in the last year, and now it's paved over. So again, confusion on that. The existing building located within the shoreline setback is proposed to reduce the vegetative surface and important topsoil critical for shoreline protective areas and replace with a semi-permeable hard scape Additionally this will not be an on grade paver patio, but actually bring in 15 inches of fill in raising that up to push that stormwater back away from the lake which is another disturbance, and they do reference the shoreline buffer planting,but again that is required. It's not anything additional they're doing. That is actually required. So the project will result in an undesirable change to the neighborhood. The project proposed is excessive impervious cover and development of a non-conforming lot which states there are six available parking spaces, removes important vegetative cover within the shoreline and decreases the shoreline setbacks. For example, the shoreline setback to the new raised patio will be 25 feet when the existing patio is 2S feet from the lake The fire pit which has never received site plan review for hard scape within 50 feet of the shoreline will decrease the shoreline setback from 19 to 15 and a half feet and the size will actually be tripled from 7S square feet to 21S square feet. So they're really expanding the area and the impervious between the house and the lake by 1000/o. Now that's not a variance in itself,but that shows the magnitude of disturbance. The project will result in adverse impacts to the environment through increased impervious cover and reduction of vegetation cover within the shoreline protection area, especially in an area experiencing harmful algae blooms. So we recommend you deny this as proposed. Thank you. BILL CROWELL 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MR. CROWELL-Bill Crowell, 20 Holly Lane. I would just point out that as has been detailed by Jeff Meyer that there is unclean hands. There is a legal doctrine which may not be applicable to the Zoning Board,but in a court of law you need to come in with clean hands to get relief. So they're at previously, without having a permit. When they paved the front of their property and put in additional parking spaces I certainly think that from people on Holly Lane's perspective this is something that we're extremely concerned about because if they are going to do this, other people can do it, and you're going to have situations where front yards become paved. This is very unusual in a rural area, or even a lakefront area, but it happens in many cities. Some cities actually have ordinances that prohibit it and put limitations on what you can do with a front yard. So just simply to say that if we, as was pointed out,it was at 750/o. We don't believe they had any demonstrative engineer's report that it was at 750/o. Now it's at 71.6, and I think that this really has to be dealt with prior to any of these other variances being dealt with and,again, you know,from a resident's point of view,look down the street and the front yard is gone. It's all parking spaces. So thank you for your time. MR.MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? Is there anything written,Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,there's a letter. "In reviewing the site plan with all its new structures including: the addition to the house, as well as the lake side patio and enlarged fire pit,it is clear that hard surfacing is increasing in close proximity to the Lake. This will have detrimental impacts on stormwater runoff. While the applicant proposes shoreline plantings and a rain garden to treat stormwater,this solution is far from robust. While the applicant can argue that this is better than what exists today,the fact is the addition to the house, the patio and the enlarged fire pit also do not exist today. In essence the applicant is proposing a solution to a problem that he is causing. It should not be seen as an improvement over the existing situation. If this project is to go ahead,please require the applicant to meet the 750/o permeability required by Town Code. Current permeability has been decreased to 71.56010 due to a previous violation where the owner paved over an existing stormwater management area. The new proposed permeability with the additional structures is 65.140/o. The proposed hard surfacing will move this lakeshore property even farther from the Town's 750/o permeability rule without remedying the previous violation. The relief that the applicant is requesting in terms of a 50 ft. setback from the Lake is significant. His patio will be within 24 ft. of the Lake and his enlarged fire pit will be within 15 feet. His infiltration devices will also not meet the 100 ft. setback required by Town Code. Avoiding hard surfacing near the Lake,improving permeability,and respecting setbacks are critical to maintaining a healthy lake. Yours sincerely, Lorraine Ruffing Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition" MR. ZAPPER-Okay. So as we started out,everything we've proposed here is dramatically better for the lake. When Chris talked about 15 feet of fill,I know you've been to the site. MR. MC CABE-Yes,we've talked about that. MR. ZAPPER-It slopes to the lake. That makes it so it can be positive drainage. You can't pump stormwater to the front of the lot, and again, this is going to be infiltrated and treated before it goes into the ground,but you can't pump stormwater uphill. The front of the house is where the septic is,which is where it should be because it's far from the lake, and that's where your parking should be because it's far from the lake as well. So we're talking about a few percentage points, but it allows stormwater to be treated right to take the water off the road and to get that into the ground. I do want to address,the area that was paved over was already riprapped. So when Mike bought the house, the fire pit was there, the deck was there,and the area that he paved to create another parking spot was stone. So he thought it was impervious and we're addressing that. Kirsten will talk about that, but we did all the math and we're making it better and taking the parking spaces away where they should be on the north side so we can plant an infiltrate. So with all that,this is certainly better for the lake, and as Chris said,you know,you have to plant if you do a project, but if you don't do a project you don't have to plant,but what Kirsten designed is way beyond what the Town requires in terms of plant materials. So it'll be better planted, infiltrated and everything's where it should be. The addition's in the front and the small,and the parking's in the front where it should be, away from the lake. So if you could just talk about the permeability. MS. CATELLIER-Yes. So I think everyone's probably be clarified on the percentages from 75,how that was the original prior to paving. When we got involved we did a takeoff and we calculated 71.6. We came to you, the Board, we were proposing 65.14 and now we're back to the 71.6 which was post paving conditions. By taking away those two parking spots,we dimensioned them to the Queensbury Code and we thought that was a good tradeoff to take away the two parking spots that he paved over. We did reconfigure it because we've seen videos of the water rushing down Holly Lane and by going to that north portion of the parcel, that's where it's all collecting and running into the Hogan's property. Technically we don't have to add that swale to the north side and add the basin in down on the western side of the parcel,but we did to be good neighbors and to accommodate the stormwater. Additionally by adding that extra planted area in,we thought there was more area for the water to run into and collect prior to going past the Carey residence. I think that's pretty much it. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MR. HENKEL-There's no doubt you've done a good job on the permeability and that,but there's so many inconsistencies from the beginning when this project first came to us. That garage area was totally different than what it is now. I mean you've got two laundry areas. You've got a laundry area in the garage. You've got a laundry area in the main house which is going to cause a lot of problems with extra water,and there's no doubt that paving on Holly Lane. I know Holly Lane pretty well and there's no doubt there's a lot of water problems there. So now you add that paving there where that crushed stone actually helped take some of that water away. So you've actually kind of created,because you've got,what,seven spaces there,eight spaces for cars to park? Where that was all grass there before. MS. CATELLIER-The existing, there were existing of nine spaces. We did have our engineer in-house take a look at that and he determined it wasn't actual stormwater practice, and if you look at the grade of Holly Lane at the start of the parcel,it's a steeper slope and then it picks up speed and then levels out as you get towards the north end of the parcel. So I could see why that existing planted area would collect a lot of water,but alternatively this I think is a feasible solution to propose this planted area and the swale on the north side of the property where it's still going to equate to what was previously there where that planted area was. And we do have more square footage between swale,planted area and the basin down towards the lake than what was existing in that paved area. MR. HENKEL-Concentrated into one small area, compared to distributing it over across the whole front of the lot. Because now you're going to increase it because you have to have a paving area where it's going to take the water off the roof of that garage and bring it into that stormwater area you talked about,but you're creating more problem than helping,too. MRS. MOORE-So,just so the Zoning Board understands,the project did go through engineering review. So at the Planning Board level it has been through that engineering review process. MR. ZAPPER-We actually have a LaBella signoff letter on the stormwater plan from the Town Engineer. So we've gotten through that. MR.HENKEL-Are you bringing that back up to 75? MS. CATELLIER-We crunched every number. I mean I spent hours crunching numbers on this. We took away pavement. We took away walks. We tried taking away an extra walk in the front of the parcel, but the Carey's determined that they need that access to the garage because they have only one access point to the garage. We tried reducing the parking down but the actual dimensions parking spaces weren't totally compliant with the Queensbury Code. We thought that by equally 71.6,yes,it's not existing,but we thought it was a good alternative approach. MR.HENKEL-And I know,Jon,it's not your fault about the garages,but what happened was that? Why was there something told to us at the beginning and then it's told to us differently now? MR. ZAPPER-So Mike thought when he went through with Hutchins Engineering,you know, when he first bought the house that he had approval for five bedrooms,but he didn't. They designed it so that a leach line could be added,but it's a four bedroom. The Town was out there,it's a four bedroom. We're proposing four bedrooms,and that's it. That's the rule. MR. HENKEL-I understand that,but why are the plans totally different now, the way the bedrooms are and the bathroom. The bathroom was over on one side. Now the bathroom is in the middle. Compared to what you showed us in the first project. MS. CATELLIER-So the plans that you have for the architectural plans that were submitted in December is what's there now,and that was submitted to confirm,in addition to Craig Brown coming out,that that's existing and that's what's to remain. MR.HENKEL-Okay. So the other one was not existing you're telling us,that you showed us first? MS. CATELLIER-That was a proposed plan that the Careys were thinking of renovating to. MR. HENKEL-Like I said,the original first plan that you came to us with the garage was totally different than now. So you say that was existing. So now which one is existing or are you going to change it? MR.CAREY-Michael Carey,2S Holly Lane. The last meeting I explained to them when we had submitted that plan for the garage I had been working on possibly changing that around to a one bedroom up in the garage to create the extra bedroom in the main house,and when we had submitted that plan,I didn't realize that I had had that plan done by an architect. I submitted the wrong plan by accident when we sent this in to Studio A. That was a proposed,what was I thinking about doing. That wasn't the existing garage plan. So it got submitted wrong. That's all. So it is two bedrooms up in that garage,with the bedroom, and with regard to the laundry room,in the garage,if this is approved,in the main house,that laundry room in the garage will go away. That was trying to get the laundry room in the main house. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MR.HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. ZAPPER-And that could be conditional. MR.HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR.CIPPE RLY-Quick question. Every other project that I can remember there's a plan of what's existing and then a plan of what you propose. MR. CAREY-That existing plan was submitted in the original application. MR. CIPPERLY-I don't have one that shows what the house looked like today. Is there anything other than this? I went back three times, and I can't find a plan that shows what your house looks like today. MS. CATELLIER-There is an existing one submitted at the original application date. MR. CIPPERLY-And part of it comes back we're going to put on a 416 square foot addition on something, but the something isn't here. MR.HENKEL-This is the one that was submitted in October. This is the October one. MR. CIPPERLY-It's the same. MR.HENKEL-Yes,it is the same. MR. CIPPERLY-It's the same. There's never a plan of what's there today. MR.HENKEL-Well,the bedroom is different. They've got a dining room in here. MR. CIPPERLY-Things are shuffled around, but we always start with, here's where we are and here's where we want to go. That's why I brought up the bathroom thing. Well there is a bathroom there. MR. CAREY-That was the original proposal. MR. CIPPERLY-What exists there today? Is there a plan for what exists today? MR. CAREY-That was submitted in the original application. MS. CATELLIER-That's what I thought it was submitted,too. MR.CIPPERLY-I mean I'm trying to look at the 330/o increase in the non-conforming use,and I don't know what the non-conforming use is. MRS. MOORE-Typically the non-conforming structure typically is an existing setback issue. MR. CIPPERLY-It is. MR.HENKEL-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Because it's an existing setback issue that's in violation,not in violation,but doesn't meet the current Code. MR. ZAPPER-It was never an issue with floor area ratio that the house was too big for the lot. MR.HENKEL-It's below floor area ratio. MRS. MOORE-It's below floor area ratio. MR. ZAPPER-Before and after. MRS. MOORE-So, no, there is not a plan that I have on file at the moment that shows the existing conditions. MR. CIPPERLY-And that's one of the things that you do typically request. Correct? MRS. MOO RE-We do,but this is,so they're just adding this addition. So tome that was what they have on file. It didn't trigger us saying,hey,what was the existing condition completely. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MR. CAREY-This whole area would be the addition. The house right now is right here. Bedroom, bedroom,kitchen,dining room,three season porch,living room. MR. CIPPERLY-Where's the second bathroom? MR. CAREY-It's right here. MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. So that's in now what is proposed to be the kitchen? Correct? MR. CAREY-Correct. That bathroom would move to the addition part. MR. CIPPERLY-I think it would be really helpful to have what's existing so that we can kind of figure things out. MR. CAREY-I really do believe that an existing plan was submitted,though,with this new plan. MR. MC CABE-So,Mr. Hogan,you had one more addition? MR. HOGAN-I did. Brian Hogan. The LaBella review, I believe in December the applicant submitted their response indicating that they reduced the permeability to 71.S6 so there'd be no change,when in fact there are some changes. It's supposed to be 75,but the other thing that happened as a result of that is that I believe the LaBella review was limited to the stormwater on the front side of the property, and not including the pavement to the rear because it was considered existing at that time. I believe if you look at the letter it'll bear that out. I believe Mr. Lapper's in error on that. Thank you. MS. CATELLIER-So the proposed plan that we submitted came in after the fact, after the paving conditions. So we took out parking spaces, making the impervious impermeability calculations better. We proposed the stormwater at the north side of the parcel to improve on existing conditions,but we're not proposing any hard surfaces up on the upper portion of the site. Therefore we didn't,like the LaBella review did an overall review of the overall proposed stormwater plan,but we're not proposing anything up there that is being directed into that swale,into that basin,that needs calculations done by LaBella. It's a good faith effort on our part to help improve the roadway and a negative situation that exists, and we've put in dry bed swales on numerous projects of ours and we see that they collect water,it runs down, and it's a good practice to have and it efficiently takes care of the stormwater issues. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we still need to go back to Square One on this project. If you look at the whole street scape on that whole corridor down along on the lakefront there, everybody's done a pretty good job I think of maintaining what we assume should be the street scape for that part of the lake,but I think this property here started off on the wrong foot by paving over up on the roadside. I think that expanding the fire pit would be a big mistake. It's not necessary for the enjoyment of the property. You could keep what you have and still enjoy it at the same time. So I'm not in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I'm not in favor of the project either. I think because previous owners may have done something that was not within permitted and then expanding on it now only takes a bad situation and makes it worse,and I think seven parking spaces. I also have a question with regard to one of the bedrooms not having a closet. According to real estate,if a room does not have a closet,it's technically not considered a bedroom. So I still have issues with what's been presented with permeability,with variances that you're suggesting. I would not be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I'd like to see the permeability up to 750/o so there's not a need for a variance,and I can't tell you how you can do that,but that's what engineers are for,whether it's the parking area or the blue stone patio,there's got to be some way on a lot this size. I think that permeability is pretty important,especially in that location, and I would agree the fire pit size,I would agree you could enjoy it at what it is now. So I don't think I would be in favor of this project at this point. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-When you look at this project, as Jim said,you got off on the wrong foot,but that doesn't necessarily affect what we're looking at right now except we know things have changed before and maybe 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) they can change again for an even better project. I think when we're dealing with permeability we come up short. In dealing with stormwater device proposal, that comes up short, and certainly the setback is more than we'd like to see close to the lake. So I think to me that's three items that are in an area that can't afford to be off. It has to be right, and I think there's too much allowance here in this variance proposal. I would be against it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I, too, am against it. I think the parcel came with some baggage to you and really not a lot you can do about it,but you could do something about it. The idea that the fire pit was unpermitted at the time. Okay. Now we're going to take that as a given in fact we're going to make it bigger and move it closer to the lake,and I mean that doesn't sell well. Whether the plan was in there or not,I don't know, but I still always like to see something that's existing and here's what the proposal is. And it is a fair sized addition. If the numbers are even close, it's about a 330/o expansion of a building, and with that comes more of everything that comes out of a building. I guess there's just enough pieces missing that I cannot support it. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-Yes,basically I agree with my Board members also. There's no doubt if they had come to us with a better project right off the bat I think it would have been better,but for some reason there's too many questions right in the beginning. I mean everybody's got a fire pit. I understand that,but it could be probably not so close to the lake. Now the original house,the deck was 2S feet from the lake. I'd like to see them get at least back to the existing, and the permeability there's no doubt it probably could be better. I mean I see you're trying to get more spaces in there, and they have a right to rent it if they want to. That's part of their rights,but you're trying to fit too many cars in there,I think,and I think that paving along Holly Lane is not needed. There needs to be grass there. So I'd not be on board as is. MR.ZAPPER-So we would ask to table it and we'll try to get to 750/o and make the changes that the Board's asking. MR. MC CABE-So from my standpoint you've got to shrink the fire pit and you've got to shrink the patio. MR. ZAPPER-We understand. We hear you. MR. MC CABE-So when will you be ready? Or when are we ready for them? MRS. MOORE-March. Probably do a deadline by February 15`h. If that works. MR. ZAPPER-Sure. MR.HENKEL-March 22,d or the 29`h. MRS. MOORE-The first Zoning Board meeting. MR.HENKEL-And have new information by the I"of March? MRS. MOORE-No.by February 15`h MR.HENKEL-February 15`h? MRS. MOORE-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 3 Sons and Holly,LLC(Michael Carey Jr.). Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 416 sq. ft. addition to the existing home of 1,275 sq. ft. footprint. The deck portions include removal of deck/porch areas to construct a new 72 sq. ft.porch and a 200 sq.ft.porch. The new floor area is 3,225 sq.ft.Site work includes installation of an on-grade paver patio area and stone slab path,enlarging the fire pit area.In addition,there is to be a rain garden and shoreline plantings added to the site.There are no changes to the existing 1,152 sq. ft. footprint garage with living space. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of nonconforming structure, and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for permeability,expansion of a nonconforming structure,and setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2022 3 SONS AND HOLLY (MICHAEL CAREY, JRJ,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Cipperly: Tabled to March 22,2023 with new information due by February 15,2023. Duly adopted this 18th day of January,2023,by the following vote: 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Palacino, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. ZAPPER-Thank you. We hear you loud and clear. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 1-2023 Michael Rozell,56 Reardon Road. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MICHAEL ROZELL AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) MICHAEL ROZELL ZONING WR LOCATION 56 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING HOMES/BUILDINGS AND DRIVEWAY AREA TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,201 SQ.FT. WITH PORCH AREAS OF 274 SQ. FT.AND 158 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 3,819 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW DRIVEWAY AREA, SEPTIC, WELL, AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 2-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.7-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; MICHAEL ROZELL,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2023, Michael Rozell, Meeting Date: January 1S, 2023 "Project Location: 56 Reardon Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of existing homes/buildings and driveway area to construct a new home of 2,201 sq.ft. with porch areas of 274 sq.ft. and 15S sq.ft.footprint.The new floor area is 3,SI9 sq.ft.The project includes a new driveway area,septic, well, and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of new single family home. The project is located in the WR zone on a 0.41 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensions The new home is proposed to be located for the side yard north 14.5 ft.proposed where 20 ft. is required. The project improves the site permeability from 70.1110 to 72.3010 so no variance is required for permeability. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to reduce the north side entrance area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief requested is for 5.5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self- created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing two buildings on the site to construct a new home. Site work includes installation of a new well and septic system. The location of the home will include grading 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) on the site for the new driveway area and building location. The plans show the location of the new home and site work." MR. URRICO-The Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was adopted on January 17`h,2023 by a unanimous seven zero vote. MR. DOBIE-Good evening,Board. For the record,Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering,representing Mike Rozell. MR. ROZELL-And I'm Mike Rozell. MR.DOBIE-He's at the table with us. So he can answer any more specific questions probably better than I can. I'll just give a quick project overview. It's for 56 Reardon Road,the northeast portion of Glen Lake, off of Tee Hill Road. It's a 0.4 acre parcel,117 feet of frontage. Right now there's two camps that are very non-conforming in their location which we're proposing to demo, specifically the westerly camp is just under three feet from the southerly property line, and the easterly camp is just under five feet from the northerly property line, and there's also a shed right down by the shore that goes as part of this project. The new building is situated so it's conforming with the shoreline setback, which the westerly camp is about 40 feet off the shore now. The new building will be just over 50, and we're conforming with the southerly property line,the 20 foot setback. So the relief that we're asking for is to the northerly property line, five and a half feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement, and the northerly property is owned in a partnership with Mr.Rozell,his brother,and Mr.Heinzelman who is also the neighbor to the north of that parcel. It was a really nice project for the neighborhood. It will have anew well,new wastewater system, stormwater management, new driveway, and will have a net increase in green space, more permeability, 394 square feet. It's a pretty straightforward project in our opinion. We're here to ask for our variance and hopefully we go to the Planning Board next week to get everything all approved. Thank you for your time,Zoning Board. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody out there that has input on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM HEINZELMAN MR. HEINZELMAN-Good evening,Board. Tom Heinzelman. My property is just on the north edge on 52 Reardon. MR. MC CABE-It seems like you were here for that property at one time. MR.HEINZELMAN-I was and I'm still in the process. It's been along two years. Trust me,but I'm here to offer my support for this project. All of you are probably aware of the fact that Mike is a very well respected businessman in the area. Everything that he does is first class,first rate, and I'm attempting to do the same thing right next door to him. There's a small parcel just between us that we own together. So any place that that variance would be warranted I would be the person that's most impacted by it because that's where my place is. So I'm in 1000/o agreement. I think it's a wonderful project. I know Mike will do a terrific job. He's got a great engineer and I'm totally for it 1000/o. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else out there that would like to speak to us with regard to this application? Is there anything written,Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. "I own the parcel at 70 Reardon Road, and I recommend approval of Mr. Rozell's variance application" And that's regards Mike Siedel. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-There's no doubt this was a well thought out project. There's a lot of pluses. Getting rid of two homes on a piece of property plus a shed to get a more conforming home. It's just a plus. New septic. New well. New plantings. It's a good project. So I'm on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I also am in favor of this project. I think you're taking something and making it better. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes,I'd be in favor of it. It looks like a nice improvement in the area. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-I will second that. I'd be in favor as well. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It meets the minimum review. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. I see nothing but good coming out of it. So with that said, Dick,I wonder if you could make a motion for us here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael Rozell. Applicant proposes removal of existing homes/buildings and driveway area to construct a new home of 2,201 sq. ft. with porch areas of 274 sq. ft. and 15S sq. ft. footprint. The new floor area is 3,SI9 sq. ft. The project includes a new driveway area, septic, well, and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of new single family home. The project is located in the WR zone on a 0.41 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensions The new home is proposed to be located for the side yard north 14.5 ft.proposed where 20 ft. is required. The project improves the site permeability from 70.1110 to 72.3010 so no variance is required for permeability. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on January 1S,2023. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because it's actually an improvement. It gets rid of some nonconforming uses and it puts in much more erosion control than is there today. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. They're really not possible. You can't take the buildings that are there and turn them into something that's much better. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it replaces some nonconforming uses and adds a fair amount of erosion control. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact there's neighbor support for the project. 5. The alleged difficulty I'm not even sure it's self-created because what you have you can't use. We'll call it self-created because it's your choice to do it. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS,I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.1- 2023 MICHAEL ROZELL, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18th Day of January 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. ROZELL-Thank you so much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 2-2023, ASD Spartan/Terrence Rasmussen, Finch Pryne LLC. AREA VARIANCE NO.2-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 ASD SPARTANJERENCE RASMUSSEN OWNER(S) FINCH PAPER LLC ZONING LC -10A LOCATION 1096 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE 38.5 ACRES OF A 100 ACRE AREA CONSISTING OF TWO PARCELS FOR A 5MW SOLAR FARM ON A CLOSED INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL. THE SOLAR PANELS WILL BE PLACED ON A FIXED BALLAST ON TOP OF THE LANDFILL CAP. THE EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN AS A MAINTENANCE GARAGE 3,156 SQ. FT. LEASED BY OTHERS. SITE WORK TO BE COMPLETED INCLUDES IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ACCESS ROAD, INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT CONCRETE PADS, INSTALLATION OF PANELS, AND UTILITY CONNECTIONS. THE SITE WORK, PANEL INSTALLATION, AND ROAD UPGRADE INCREASE THE HARD SURFACE ON SITE TO A NONCOMPLIANT PERCENTAGE. SITE PLAN FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLAR FARM PROJECT AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SOLAR FARM. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT REQUIRED FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FT.OF WETLANDS FENCE INSTALLATION). RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 3-2023;FWW 1-2023;SUP 1-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2023&z TOWN OF FORT ANN ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 50.24 AC(6.1) &z 5791 AC. (6.2) TAX MAP NO.279.-1-6.1&z 279.-1-6.2 SECTION 179-3-040LC TERENCE RASMUSSEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 2-2023,ASD Spartan/Terence Rasmussen, Meeting Date: January 1S, 2023 "Project Location: 1096 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to utilize 35.5 acres of a 100 acre area consisting of two parcels for a 5MW solar farm on a closed industrial landfill. The solar panels will be placed on a fixed ballast on top of the landfill cap. The existing building to remain as a maintenance garage 3,156 sq. ft. leased by others. Site work to be completed includes improvements to the access road,installation of equipment concrete pads,installation of panels,and utility connections. The site work, panel installation, and road upgrade increase the hard surface on site to a noncompliant percentage.Site plan for renewable energy solar farm project and special use permit for solar farm. Freshwater wetlands permit required for work within 100 ft.of wetlands(fence installation). Relief is requested for permeability and location of solar farm in the front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for site permeability and location of a solar farm in the front yard. Section 179 3-040 dimension and Section 179-5-140 Renewable The applicant proposes permeability of 59.30/o where 950/o is required. Relief is also requested for having a solar project in the front yard for parcel 6.1 - noting the panels extend past the building towards Route 149. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to reduce the number of panels or installation of a permeable drive surface noting the permeable surface would be credited 500/o. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minor relevant to the code. Where relief is requested 5.70/o and a portion of the solar project being in the front yard. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal to no impact on the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project includes installation of Solar panels to ballast structures on top of the existing landfill cap that extends on both properties. The project also has noted two areas for battery energy storage systems. The site consists of a 42.1 ac of a landfill cap,1.3 ac of asphalt/gravel road area. The panels will cover about 9.9 ac between both properties. The solar arrays are to be spaced from 14 ft.to 47 ft.to allow light vehicles for routine maintenance after construction. The plans show the location of the panels and the existing driveway are to be improved." MR. URRICO-The Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was passed and adopted on January 17`h,2023 by a unanimous vote. MR. RASMUSSEN-My name is Terry Rasmussen. I represent the AMP Development which is the owner of the ASD Spartan project. First of all I'd like to thank you all very much for your time and consideration. It's a big job. We are proposing a 5 megawatt solar project. It will be located on an existing landfill as stated. So if you look on the drawing, north is to the right. So the existing site is, we're in along term lease with Finch Paper. They have use of the site to dispose of paper sludge waste. There's a north section and a south section. So this event was closed in 199E under the supervision of DEC. The cap consists of a high density polyethylene plastic liner on top, covered by 1S inches of topsoil. So we're proposing to upgrade the access road from 149 and then install our panel and rocking system on top of the cap without disturbing the liner. There will be rocks weighing down. The height of the rocking is planned at nine and a half feet. So the maximum height will be nine and a half feet above the grade there. We are also putting in a contingency that if we cannot secure that rocking, the maximum 12 foot height will be. Currently the landfill cap is vegetated with small grasses and that. There are trees to the north between the landfill and the road so it's not visible from the road, and the southern portion of the second parcel is all treed forest,wetland which will not be disturbed. Other neighboring properties up along Route 149, there's various commercial businesses. To the west is the Town of Queensbury landfill. To the east is a gravel or aggregate pit, and to the south, as I said, we're not utilizing the southern portion of the second parcel. It is a residential neighborhood,but it's quite large. So we are asking two variances. I'll address the front lot one first. There is an existing maintenance building on site. Our plan has always been to locate in a landfill. It's one of the more desirable places for a solar array. The second variance is for permeability. So we're in an LC-l0A zoning which requires 950/o permeability. The entire landfill cap is 41 acres and it is covered by, like I said, 1S inches of soil within an impermeable plastic membrane. By placing our panels on top of that we're not going to fundamentally change the infiltration powering to the land or the stormwater flows. We have submitted a stormwater management plan to the Town for review and we have engaged the NYSDEC landfill group to amend the closure plan to allow for this. So it will be reviewed by them as well as the Adirondack Park Agency and we'll have to get a SPDES permit prior to construction. So based on that, the only other point I'd make is that we are happy to do a permeable construction if there are permeability issues. MR. MC CABE-So I just have one question. Normally you have a methane fence. Will you be disturbing them at all? MR. RASMUSSEN-No. They're shown,we are setting them at 15 or 20 foot setback. Our engineer said that may be desirable from the perspective of the actual venting to consolidate some of them,but our plan is just to leave the fence in place and put a buffer around them so they won't be disturbed. MR. MC CABE-And they won't disturb you? MR. RASMUSSEN-No,no. MR. MC CABE-It's been quite a while. MR.HENKEL-Are you saying that's 1S inches of material on the cap? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MR. RASMUSSEN-On average. MR.HENKEL-And you're telling me you're going to secure these units without going past the 1S inches? MR. RASMUSSEN-They're just concrete blocks that will sit on top of the cap. There are certain spots where that slope is, and we'll cut partly into that,put some gravel down and keep it stable. MR.HENKEL-Is that going to cause any problems with,the material that's capped there,how hazardous is that? MR. MC CABE-The cap, the way it's constructed,it's a membrane and they put clay on top of that, and then they put soil on top of that. I believe that that's the requirement for a landfill cap, and then they put vegetation on the top of that. So it will be kind of be no different than putting a,not a cellar,but a crawl space underneath the house. MR.HENKEL-My wife's uncle is an environmental engineer. He has a firm in Manhattan and New Jersey and he's worked on these. He's worked on the one on Ceiba Geigy. He also worked on one that, I don't know if you're familiar with the Bayonne project that was changed from a dump site to a golf course and now all these people are dying because they worked on that. Are you familiar with that? MR. RASMUSSEN-I've heard of similar cases. MR.HENKEL-So I'm wondering,is it going to create? MR. MC CABE-Well,the waste material was just wood. MR.HENKEL-So there's really no chemicals there. MR. RASMUSSEN-No,there are monitoring wells around the cap that are monitored on an annual basis and they've not noted any significant contamination. MR. MC CABE-Bayonne's a little different situation than here. MR.HENKEL-But it's still a capped landfill. MR. MC CABE-But the landfill,again,it wasn't a general landfill. MR. URRICO-I would like to hear the expert answer the question rather than you. MR. MC CABE-I am an expert. I was involved in. MR. URRICO-But you're not presenting the variance. He is. MR. MC CABE-I'm just trying to explain the situation. MR. RASMUSSEN-There are monitoring wells surrounding it and it is subject to annual water testing as well as I think methane gas. MR.HENKEL-Okay. I was just wondering about that. MR. RASMUSSEN-It will be continually monitored and this will be part of the amendment to the closure plan. MR. CIPPERLY-You would be okay with our approval conditioned on a DEC signoff? MR. RASMUSSEN-Absolutely. MR.URRICO-I guess,similar to his question,I have questions about the panels. Are they static? Do they stay in the same location? MR. RASMUSSEN-Yes,they are fixed. So they will be facing south at I believe it's a 22 degree angle. MR. URRICO-Okay. Will it be facing traffic or will it be facing trees? MR. RASMUSSEN-Route 149 is to the north and these are south facing So the sun's in the south. MR. URRICO-Does it absorb the sun or does it reflect it? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/IS/2023) MR. RASMUSSEN-It absorbs the vast majority of it. We will be requiring our supplier put on an anti- glare coating or anti-glare glass. MR. URRICO-Does that create any danger for the trees surrounding it? MR. RASMUSSEN-No,it doesn't reflect it. Any reflection will be concentrated. It is elevated and in the pit. So elevating the panels like that,so when the sun reflects them it's going to go down. MR. UNDERWOOD-Laura, I had a question. I know that the neighbors up in that area have PFAS problems with their wells and stuff like that. Has anything been attributed to this site or is it all the Town site? MRS. MOO RE-I apologize. I don't know the full extent of it,but I don't believe this parcel is part of that review. I think it's more closer to Jenkins area. I apologize. I don't have that knowledge of where exactly all the parcels are. I just know it's closer to Jenkinsville. MR. RASMUSSEN-Right. I have heard that. This site, from the testing, they have not detected PFAS from this site. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.KEENAN-You said it was a nine foot height on these,nine and a half,but it could be twelve? MR. RASMUSSEN-Yes,so there are some supply chain issues. So our preferred racking is nine and a half feet tall,but we would like to have an extra two and a half feet allowance in case we can't secure the racking we'd like. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody out there who would like to address us on this particular project? Is there anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Mary. MRS.PALACINO-I would be in favor of this project. I think solar is a good way to go as long as we're not cutting trees down. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-Yes, I think it's a good use of this property at this point. I wouldn't want to use it for anything else. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think it's interesting that Queensbury seems to be returning to its farming roots. Albeit it's a little different type of farm,but I'd be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Yes,I'm in favor of it. Anything that you can do to re-use something that was retired is even better. MR. MC CABS John? MR. HENKEL-This property probably couldn't be used for much so it makes sense to make renewable energy out of it. What we're giving them is very minimal. So I'd be on board with it. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a proper use of a pre-existing. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MR. MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. Again,there's probably not much else that could be done with the land. Sothis is a good use. So,with that,Bob,I wonder if you could give us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from ASD Spartan/ Terence Rasmussen. Applicant proposes to utilize 35.5 acres of a 100 acre area consisting of two parcels for a 5MW solar farm on a closed industrial landfill. The solar panels will be placed on a fixed ballast on top of the landfill cap.The existing building to remain as a maintenance garage 3,156 sq.ft.leased by others. Site work to be completed includes improvements to the access road, installation of equipment concrete pads, installation of panels, and utility connections. The site work, panel installation, and road upgrade increase the hard surface on site to a noncompliant percentage. Site plan for renewable energy solar farm project and special use permit for solar farm. Freshwater wetlands permit required for work within 100 ft. of wetlands (fence installation). Relief is requested for permeability and location of a solar farm in the front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for site permeability and location of a solar farm in the front yard. Section 179 3-040 dimension and Section 179-5-140 Renewable The applicant proposes permeability of 59.30/o where 950/o is required. Relief is also requested for having a solar project in the front yard for parcel 6.1 — noting the panels extend past the building towards Route 149. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on January 1S,2023. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because basically we're taking a landfill and improving it with a solar energy project. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and we find this reasonable and alternatives are not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's a very minimal amount of permeability difference and the parcel setbacks are good. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact we find this as an improvement to the conditions. 5. The alleged difficulty may be self-created,but I think it's a good use of the parcel. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) A DEC sign off on the project. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2023 ASD SPARTAN/TERRENCE RASMUSSEN,Introduced by Robert Keenan,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 18th Day of January 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. RASMUSSEN-Thank you very much for your time. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 3-2023,Neil&Sandra Rypkema,2S North Road. AREA VARIANCE NO.3-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II NEIL&z SANDRA RYPKEMA O WNER(S) NEIL&z SANDRA RYPKEMA ZONING MDR LOCATION 28 NORTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES: BUILDING A OF 2,800 SQ. FT. WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE; AND BUILDING B OF 1,200 SQ. FT. AND MAINTAIN AN EXISTING 1,200 SQ. FT. GARAGE ON-SITE. THE PROJECT WORK INCLUDES MINIMAL CLEARING FOR THE NEW HOMES AND MUNICIPAL CONNECTION FOR SEWER AND WATER. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (NOT CONNECTED) ON A PARCEL AND FOR MORE THAN ONE GARAGE ON A PARCEL. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2023 LOT SIZE 15.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO.302.7- 1-34 SECTION 179-3-040;179-4-OIOC(6);179-5-020 NEIL RYPKEMA,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2023, Neil & Sandra Rypkema, Meeting Date: January 1S, 2023 "Project Location: 2S North Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct two single family homes:Building A of 2,SOO sq.ft.with an attached garage; and Building B of 1,200 sq. ft. and maintain an existing 1,200 sq. ft. garage on-site. The project work includes minimal clearing for the new homes and municipal connection for sewer and water. Relief is requested for two single family homes (not connected) on a parcel and for more than one garage on a parcel. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for two single family homes (not connected) on a parcel and for more than one garage on a parcel. The project is located in the Multi-Family Residential zone on a 15.59 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional and 179-5-020 garage The applicant proposes two separate dwelling units where a duplex requires to be connected.In addition, relief is requested to maintain the existing garage building and to construct a single-family home with an attached garage where only one garage per parcel is allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to subdivide the parcel for two homes and two garages on separate lots. A subdivision may trigger additional variances. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for two homes and two garages on one lot. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of two single family homes on one parcel where the existing garage is to remain and a second garage is to be constructed. The parcel is 15 plus acres and located in the MDR zone that allows for multifamily dwellings. The plans show the proposed configuration of the homes on the parcel." 2S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) MR.RYPKEMA-Hi. Neil Rypkema. My son Craig. Sandra is behind us in the audience. I have a prepared letter I'd like to read. My wife Sandy and I request permission to build 2 homes with garages on our 15.59- acre property. Our goal is to create a multi-generational property with 2-independent homes. This design with independent homes would create separate residences allowing us to be near our children and grandchildren. The property has an existing 2 car garage; this garage is used to house equipment for maintaining our property as well as storing a boat in the winter. Our plan includes building a main home with a new 2-car attached garage. In addition, we plan to build a second smaller home adjacent to the existing garage. If only the existing 2-car garage is allowed,it will be insufficiently sized for our needs. It should be noted that there exist three other neighboring properties each with multiple garages (attached and detached). Therefore this plan will be in keeping with neighborhood aesthetics which is very important to us. We appreciate your consideration. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-Do you ever think about subdividing it? Wouldn't that be an easier way of doing this? MR. RYPKEMA-We haven't given it that much thought. MR.HENKEL-It's a large piece of property,15 acres. CRAIG RYPKEMA MR. C. RYPKEMA-We're trying to build within this area here. This is not all the 15 acres shown. This is a tuned in area. MR.HENKEL-The whole property is 15 acres,though. Right? MR. C. RYPKEMA-Correct. Yes. MR. RYPKEMA-That is about two acres,what you're looking at there. MR. C. RYPKEMA-We'd like to have a shared driveway and I have to use the existing garage, the home next it,up by the road. The other home is set back. To split it up would be to divide it down the middle and we'd have two narrow deep properties that wouldn't lend themselves quite as well to the space that we have. MR. CIPPERLY-125 feet of frontage,that's it. More or less. MR. C. RYPKEMA-Right. To divide it down the middle,it would be awkward. It wouldn't be fitting. MR.RYPKEMA-We understand that the zoning allows for a duplex,which would just mean two attached homes. MR. MC CABE-A single building. MR. RYPKEMA-A single building. Correct. So my way of thinking, this might be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood than a duplex. Right? We would desire to be independent from the main home. MR.MC CABE-Other questions? A public hearing has been advertised so at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to speak as to this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEVE REDMOND MR. REDMOND-Good evening. Steve Redmond, North Road. My only issue I guess is you're supposed to have a single dwelling on a lot. Now we're talking about two dwellings. There's a bunch of other property behind that. So do we,how much building will eventually go on if we now allow a variance for this? Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? MORIAH MATHIS MS. MATHIS-Good evening. My name is Moriah Mathis. I live at 36 North Road,just next door to this lot here. I have a couple of questions about the project. One being will there be more clearing done to the lot? It said minimal clearing. We recently purchased the building next door, and our once private home 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) is much less private. Much less private to the neighboring buildings and the street. So I'm just wondering if there's going to be a buffer of some sort or what we're going to be looking at moving forward. I also am wondering about,there's been a significant amount of trees cut,and we're noticing our front yard flooding, our side yard flooding, which is right in this wetland area between our parcel and their parcel and we haven't been there that long,but it seems to have, I don't know if it's just this winter,but it seems to be more than last winter,and we've also had the end of our road flood quite a few times. So I'm just wondering if that's going to be affected more by this. And I'm also wondering why there's going to be two smaller homes rather than one larger home. If you look in the neighborhood,I think just my opinion is aesthetically larger homes fit better in that neighborhood. So those are my questions. I also am just wondering the length of the project. We live on the dead end side of North Road and the road isn't in the best shape. So I'm just concerned about large vehicles and how long the project's going to be going on and the condition of the road. That's all I have for questions or concerns. BILL HAYES MR. HAYES-Bill Hayes,24 North Road. I'm immediately to the south border there, and Neil and I have an open relationship talking about our bordering properties. My only thing for Neil to consider is the back building,because it is, as Moriah just pointed out,a wetland,very wet, and it comes from the stream to the south and then migrates to the north. Just some sort of mitigation would need to be addressed for three properties with such a building. That's it. Otherwise I think it would be a great addition to the neighborhood. DAVID M. NEALY MR. NEALY-Good evening,Board. I'm David M. Neay from 29 North Road. I'm also representing Freda Solomon from 23 North Road and Mary Law from 25 North Road. They're unable to attend because of health issues. We had concerns mainly because of water. I don't know if you're familiar with the area in there,but it is a wetland. We have tremendous runoff. We've been there for 27 years. When we first moved in it was kind of a, once every couple of years you'd get water in the basement. Since they put Lowe's in,a lot of the pavement that was done,it's not very far from the Quaker Road corridor there. We've had a lot of issues with water,to the point where I'm down in the basement once a week getting the water out of certain rooms down there. So we've noticed, our property's way this way,but the end of that road has two big drainage ditches in it,and it feeds directly into the brook,into Halfway Brook. The other part of this property,what's not shown,the larger portion,my understanding was protected wetland. It was donated. It was supposed to not be ever developed,based on the owners two owners ago. We had a fire on the road. That garage that's existing was the maintenance garage for the property next door. I was unaware that it was two parcels of land. So when the fire happened, it was an unfortunate event, new neighbors moved in. They did a beautiful job fixing the place up, and then the next thing we know,this piece of property was for sale,and this,again,the whole bottom piece of this backs right up to Hovey Pond. So there's two areas where the water runoff goes. So that's just been a major concern of ours really is the, you know, across the road there was a neighbor that moved in about 15 years ago and he cut a tenth of an acre,just clear cut,and it dramatically changed the water table in the whole neighborhood. That was kind of the tipping point of when we started having the water issues. So we're seeing water,if it rains we get water. There's no way around it. So that's really the concern we have,coming from the other side,and the fact that it spills into Halfway Brook. I mean I've become a water mitigation stormwater expert. Not by choice,but by just having to maintain the properties. So that's really what I have. Freda did ask me to read this. I, Freda Solomon,would like to be represented by this note. I'd like to at least view the plans as I'm not in favor of approving this plan without reviewing the plans. I'm unable to be physically at the meeting because of health issues. Fred Solomon, and again Mary Law expressed that she would like the same thing. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else? Harrison,do you have anything? So do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the project is fine as far as I'm concerned. I think we should be concerned with the runoff in that area. The Queensbury Land Conservancy has an easement on the back parcel in there, too. So we maintain that parcel in its natural state. I think that the project home as proposed, where the main home will be is going to be minimal disturbance because it's already a cleared area,and I think the other project is a smaller home next to the garage that currently exists is also going to result in minimal clearing. So I think as long as they recognize, and I think the Planning Board will probably run it through the ringer, run it through the microscope and look at the issues regarding the 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/1S/2023) runoff in the neighborhood. I know it's wet all the way back to the bike trail. In the springtime it's a frog pond. MR. MC CABS John? MR.HENKEL-I think you have to look at the neighborhood. I don't think it fits in with the neighborhood. I mean I know the property can warrant many houses on 15 acres. Would a duplex be better? I can't say that. I'm just not for the project. I just don't think it fits well into that neighborhood. I would not be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I can actually support the project. The water issues notwithstanding,there's plenty of space and I don't think the two structures are necessarily out of character. The garage is what it is, and a house next to it is probably going to look better than a garage sitting there all by itself. I'm not opposed to it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm willing to look at two garages on one parcel. We've done that before, especially on a parcel this size,but I'm not willing to overlook two homes on a parcel that's not zoned for that. I think we'd be effectively changing zoning for this area and maybe for the Town, too. So I'd be against this project. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I think I'd agree with Roy that the two houses on the one property change the character of the neighborhood and be significant with zoning. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I'm tossed. I know the neighborhood and I question the two homes. I certainly see where the owner is looking to establish a multi-generational. Again,I don't feel that this is the best use of that property. MR. MC CABE-So you're a no? MRS.PALACINO-I vote no. MR. MC CABE-And I,too,think that allowing two single family homes on a single property is the wrong way to go. We've tried to undo that in the Town for a number of years and why, well it might fit these particular residents,they could sell it and then it becomes a problem. So I'm not in support of this project. So if you guys can come backup. You have a couple of choices here. So you don't have enough votes right now. You're going to have to do something differently. Most probably subdivide the property if you want two homes. If you want a duplex,you know,if it's a single building then,you know,that changes things a little bit. MR.RYPKEMA-To that point,as far as a duplex goes,I cannot see how that could be better fitting for this property than what we are proposing. That just doesn't fit this property at all. MR. MC CABE-So your options here are you can call,well,you can force a formal vote and it's not going to pass,or you can table this project until a later date and,you know,take a look at other possible options. Or you can withdraw. MRS. MOORE-So just to add additional supporting information to what Mike is saying, is that if you're going to propose a tabling, the project wouldn't be heard until a later time, but at that point,you could start,communicate with Staff,myself,to see if there's a development of an alternative plan that you could propose to them. MR. RYPKEMA-I imagine we should table it. Should I address some of the questions about the water? MR. MC CABE-I mean you can if you want,but you'd probably do better on your next presentation. So what are you thinking for timing for you? When would be the earliest that you'd be ready? MRS. MOORE-So March is our next meeting,with February 15`h as a deadline. MR. RYPKEMA-I guess maybe we would ask for April for May. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) MRS. MOORE-April would be fine,I mean the first meeting in April,because then that gives you enough time to work,communicate with Staff or develop alternative plans. MR. CIPPERLY-Will the subdivision come to us? MRS. MOORE-Only if it triggers additional variances. MR. CIPPERLY-So if you went through the subdivision process,you may not have to come back here at all. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. CIPPERLY-You sure have enough space. MR.HENKEL-We'll table it to May? MR. RYPKEMA-May. MR. HENKEL-And in between then you can decide what you want. Okay. We're looking at May 17`h then. MRS. MOORE-I think the first meeting in May is May 17`h MR.HENKEL-May 17`h. Okay. Any new information by? MRS. MOORE-April 15`h MR.HENKEL-April 15`h. Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Neil&z Sandra Rypkema. Applicant proposes to construct two single family homes: Building A of 2,800 sq. ft. with an attached garage; and Building B of 1,200 sq. ft. and maintain an existing 1,200 sq. ft. garage on-site. The project work includes minimal clearing for the new homes and municipal connection for sewer and water. Relief is requested for two single family homes (not connected) on a parcel and for more than one garage on a parcel. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2023 NEIL&z SANDRA RYPKEMA,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Mary Palacino: Tabled to May 17,2023 with any new information due by April 15,2023. Duly adopted this 18`h day of January,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Henkel,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-We'll see you next time. MR. RYPKEMA-Thank you. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 18TH, 2023, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18`h day of January,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) Michael McCabe,Chairman 33